Case Digest: Ichong, et. al. vs. Hernandez, etc.

and Sarmiento
FACTS:
R.A. No. 1180 entitled An Act to Regulate the Retail Business was passed that nationalizes the
retail trade business by prohibiting against persons not citizens of the hilippines! as well as
associations! partnerships or corporations the capital of which are not wholly owned by citizens
of the hilippines! fro" engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade with the e#ception of
$.%. citizens and &uridical entities. Aliens are re'uired to present registration to the proper
authorities a (erified state"ent concerning their businesses.
ISSUES:
1. )hether the Act (iolates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the
hilippines* and
+. )hether the pro(isions of the Act (iolates the due process of law
RUI!":
1. ,here is no "erit in this contention. ,he $N -harter i"poses no strict or legal
obligations regarding the rights and freedo" of their sub&ects and the .eclaration of
/u"an Rights contains nothing "ore than a "ere reco""endation! or a co""on
standard of achie(e"ent for all peoples and nations. ,he ,reaty of A"ity between -hina
and the hilippines guarantees e'uality of treat"ent to the -hinese nationals upon the
sa"e ter"s as the nationals of any other country! and is therefore not (iolated for all
nationals e#cept those of the $nited %tates! who are granted special rights by the
-onstitution are all prohibited fro" engaging in the retail trade.
+. A cursory study of the pro(isions of the law show that it is reasonable as it is "ade
prospecti(e and recognizes the right and pri(ilege of those already engaged in the
occupation to continue therein during the rest of their li(es. 0urther"ore! the test of the
(alidity of a law attac1ed as a (iolation of due process! is not in its reasonableness but its
unreasonableness and the -ourt found that these pro(isions are not unreasonable.
Republic of the hilippines
SU#RE$E C%URT
2anila
3N BAN-
.3-4%45N
August +6! 1789
:.R. No. ;<=079
TE%D%RIC% SA!T%S! plaintiff<appellee!
(s.
CATAI!A ICH%!, UISA C%RDER% DE #EDRE"%SA, &%SE C%RDER%, &R. and
%RE!'% C%RDER%! defendants<appellants.
Antonio Montilla for appellants.
Julio Siayngco for appellee.
, J.:
,his is an appeal interposed by defendants -atalina 4chon and ;uisa -ordero de edregosa fro"
the decision of the -ourt of 0irst 4nstance of ,acloban! ;eyte! in -i(il -ase No. 1>8 of that court!
declaring the plaintiff ,eodorico %antos the owner of the land described in the co"plaint as
follows?
A portion only of a residential land situated at the oblacion of the 2unicipality of Burauen!
;eyte! of appro#i"ately 1=0 s'uare "eters in area* co(ered by ,a# .eclaration No. +6788 @ part
only* (alued at +!+>0 part* designated at ;ot +7> @ portion only of the Burauen -adastre* and
bounded on the North! by %. August %t.* on the 3ast! by %. Ra"on %t.* on the %outh! by heirs of
-andido 2asayon! and on the )est! by the re"aining portion in the na"e of the /rs. of Aose %.
-ordero and e(idenced by -ertificate of ,itle No. of the Registry of .eeds for the ro(ince of
;eyte.BRecord on Appeal! pp. +<>.C
and ordering the defendants to restore the possession thereof to the plaintiff.
,he appeal was originally doc1eted with the -ourt of Appeals! but upon "otion of the appellee!
the case was certified of this court on the ground that the only error assigned by the appellants is
a 'uestion of law! to wit?
,/3 ;5)3R -5$R, 3RR3. 4N N5, .4%24%%4N: ,/3 -52;A4N, 5N ,/3
:R5$N. ,/A, ,/3 A-,45N BR5$:/, BD ,/3 ;A4N,400 4% N5, ,/3 R53R
R323.D.
,here being no 'uestions of facts raised in this appeal! the following findings of fact of the -ourt
a quo are conclusi(e?
.uring the trial it was pro(ed that in the year 17>=! Aose %. -ordero! father of the defendants and
his heirs! ;uisa! Aose Ar.! 0rancisco and ;orenzo! all surna"ed -ordero! sold a portion of a parcel
of residential lot belonging to the con&ugal partnership between said Aose %. -ordero and his first
wife the deceased 0rancisca ,iaoson to 0elipe R. %antos by (irtue of a docu"ent "ar1ed 3#hibit
A. 4t is stated in said 3#hibit A that the whole parcel of land was ad&udicated to said Aose %.
-ordero by the -adastral -ourt in the following proportion? one<half B1E+C to hi" and the other
half to his children with his first wife! 0rancisca ,iaoson! abo(e "entioned. ,hat the sale of the
portion e#ecuted by Aose %. -ordero to 0elipe R. %antos appears in a docu"ent 3#hibit A
which is a public instru"ent ratified by a notary public and said portion consists of 1=0 s'uare
"eters specifically described in paragraph + of the co"plaint 'uoted abo(e. ,hat said 0elipe R.
%antos in turn sold the sa"e portion to one Aurea 3spada by (irtue of 3#hibit B! also a public
instru"ent ratified by a notary public. 4t is noteworthy that in 3#hibit B it is specified as
boundary on the western side of the portion sub&ect of the sale the re"aining portion! which
belongs to Aose %. -ordero. 4t appears further that in 3#hibit B! the sale of 0elipe R. %antos in
fa(or of Aurea 3spada! one of the heirs of Aose %. -ordero na"ely ;orenzo -ordero! signed as
witness to said instru"ent B3#hibit BC. 4t was also pro(en that Aurea 3spada who ac'uired the
portion in litigation fro" 0elipe R. %antos sold the sa"e to the herein plaintiff! ,eodorico %antos!
in a deed of sale "ar1ed 3#hibit - also a public instru"ent ratified before a notary public.
,hat since the purchase by the plaintiff of the portion of the land in 'uestion he has been paying
the ta#es corresponding thereto.
,he defendants do not deny the successi(e transfer of the portion fro" the original owner! Aose
%. -ordero! to 0elipe R. %antos! fro" the latter to Aurea 3spada and finally to ,eodorico %antos.
,hey clai"ed howe(er that the said portion of land consisting of 1=0 s'uare "eters and for"ing
part of lot No. +7> of the -adastral %ur(ey of Burauen! ;eyte! ha(ing been clai"ed by Aose %.
-ordero in the -adastral hearing and the sa"e ha(ing been ad&udicated in his fa(or as an
undi(ided property between hi" and his children already "entioned and there ha(ing no sub<
di(ision effected so far between the co<owners and the shares not ha(ing been di(ided by "etes
and bound the sale effected by Aose %. -ordero with specific boundaries has no legal effect and
cannot set aside the decision of the -adastral -ourt ad&udicating said land to Aose %. -ordero and
his children.
,he -ourt is of the opinion and so holds that the sale "ade by Aose %. -ordero of the portion of
land in litigation to 0elipe R. %antos is (alid and being so the subse'uent transfer of said portion
fro" 0elipe R. %antos to Aurea 3spada and fro" the latter to ,eodorico %antos! the herein
plaintiff! is also (alid.
4t is not disputed that Aose %. -ordero is a co<owner of the lot a portion of which is the land in
'uestion! the sa"e being a con&ugal property with his first wife 0rancisca ,iaoson and therefore
one<half of it corresponds to hi". ,he whole lot contains an area of 87= s'uare "eters B3#hibit
+FC his share therefore is +78 s'uare "eters. 4t is also an established fact that he e#ecuted the
sale of the portion belonging to hi" consisting of 1=0 s'uare "eters to 0elipe R. %antos in
Aanuary 17>= after the death of his first wife 0rancisca ,iaoson. ,he right of Aose %. -ordero to
dispose of a portion of the lot owned by hi" as his share can not be disputed. ,he "ere fact that
no subdi(ision has been done so far of the whole lot between the co<owners do not depri(e Aose
%. -ordero of his right to the lawful disposition of his share.
,he contention of the defendant that the sale "ade by Aose %. -ordero of a portion of the
undi(ided property ha(ing been done by "etes and bounds is illegal! does not hold water
considering that when Aose %. -ordero sold said portion to 0elipe R. %antos by (irtue of 3#hibit
A his children were present and saw while the (endor was indicating the boundaries of the
portion sold to the (endee which is tanta"ount to an ac'uiescence of what their father Aose %.
-ordero was doing! and this i"plied consent on the part of ;orenzo -ordero one of his sons and
a co<owner of the lot fro" which the portion sold was ta1en beca"e "ore "anifest when he
signed as a witness in the deed of sale e#ecuted by 0elipe R. %antos of the sa"e portion now
sub&ect of litigation to Aurea 3spada! the predecessor in interest of the herein plaintiff. 4t is
noteworthy that the defendants Aose %. -ordero! Ar.! ;orenzo and 0rancisco -ordero! children of
Aose %. -ordero! %r.! and co<owners of the land a portion of which is sub&ect of this contro(ersy!
did not e(en bother the"sel(es to answer the co"plaint. BRecord on Appeal! pp. 16<++.C
As already stated! only one argu"ent is ad(anced by appellants for the re(ersal of the decision
appealed fro"! na"ely? that the decision of Aune 17! 1791 in the cadastral proceeding
ad&udicating the land in 'uestion to Aose -ordero! %r. and his children being now final and
unappealable! and there being no entry of the decree of registration up to this ti"e! the proper
re"edy of the plaintiff<appellee is to file a petition for re(iew in the cadastral case on the ground
of fraud under article >8 of Act 97=! and not this independent action for the reco(ery of the
property.
)e find no "erit in the abo(e argu"ent. 4t is to be borne in "ind that under the ;and
Registration Act! a petition for re(iew "ay be filed only by a person who has been depri(ed of
his title to! right! or interest in property by reason of fraud Bof the applicantC! calculated to
depri(e the interested party of his day in court! and pre(enting hi" fro" asserting his right to the
property registered in the na"e of the applicant B:rey Alba (s. .e la -ruz! 16 hil. 97* Ruiz (s.
;acsa"ana! >+ hil. =8>* .izon (s. ;acap! 80 hil. 17>C. 4t has neither been alleged nor pro(ed
in this case that the applicant Aose -ordero! %r. procured the registration of the land in 'uestion in
his na"e in fraud of the rights of the plaintiff<appellee or his predecessors<in<interest! all of
who" deri(e their title fro" said applicant* conse'uently! a petition for re(iew of the decision in
the cadastral case would not lie.
4t is true that under pre(ious rulings of this court! appellee could ha(e "o(ed for the reopening
of the case in the cadastral court so that he could be gi(en an opportunity to pro(e his right to the
land in 'uestion and get a decree in his fa(or! since the ad&udication of land in a registration or
cadastral case does not beco"e final and incontro(ertible until the e#piration of one year after
the entry of the final decree! and until the court rendering the decree "ay! after hearing! set aside
the decision or decree and ad&udicate the land to another person BAfalla and inaroc (s. Rosauro!
=0 hil. =++* Gal"onte (s. Nable! 96 5.:. +716! 88 hil. +8=* -apio (s. -apio! 80 5.:. H1I 1>6*
79 hil. 11>C. But appellee chose instead to file this independent action for the reco(ery of the
land in 'uestion* and as the lower court has conclusi(ely found! and the appellants do not now
contest! that the appellee is entitled to the ownership and possession thereof by (irtue of his
ac'uisition of said land in 179= fro" Aurea 3spada! the transferee of 0elipe R. %antos! to who"
the original owner Aose %. -ordero! %r. had (alidly con(eyed his interest thereto! we find no
practical reason why the decision of the lower court in this case should not be affir"ed! without
pre&udice to the plaintiff<appelleeJs right to petition to the cadastral case for the subdi(ision of lot
+7> of the Burauen -adastre! the segregation of the portion ac'uired by hi"! and the
ad&udication thereof in his na"e.
)herefore! the decision appealed fro" is affir"ed! with costs against the appellants.